Volume 26 Number 09
Produced: Sun Mar 2 16:04:53 1997
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Brushing Teeth on Shabbat
[Ezriel Krumbein]
Brushing Teeth on Shabbos
[Mark Zelunka]
Hebrew
[Paul Merling]
Hypertension and Salting Meat
[Rick Turkel, Ext. 2214, Room 5404B bs]
Marsupials and Kashrut
[Shoshana L. Boublil]
Mezonot Rolls
[Carl Sherer]
Modern and Ancient Arabic
[Len Mansky]
Modern Hebrew vs Ancient Hebrew
[Moishe Kimelman]
Sistine Churches
[Tanya Scott]
Unkosher Pets
[Zev Sero]
Wallaby, Camel, Hyrax and the Hare
[Mark Rayman]
Why Hebrew Preserved for 4000 Years
[Russell Hendel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezriel Krumbein <ezsurf@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:52:53 -0800
Subject: Re: Brushing Teeth on Shabbat
>Zvi Goldberg writes
> I can understand why brushing your teeth on Shabbos is
> permissable because smoothing is not a problem, but why isn't there a
> concern of halbana (whitening) ?
> Furthermore, for those with sore gums, causing anything to bleed
> is also prohibited because of shechita (slaughtering) ?
I think the reason it is not considered halbana or the melacha of libun
is because that milacha refers to cloth. The melacha speficially is
related to whitening the wool sheared from a sheep before dying it. I
think it would only apply to a situation where the dirt was integrated
into the material as with cloth. Therefore it is not a problem to wash
white dishes even though they end up white as a result.
The problem of bleeding gums as related to brushing teeth is an issue.
Rav Braun Z"L in Shaarim Metzuyanim Bhalacha on the Kitzur Shulchan
Aruch Sif 80 footnote 48 states that it is forbbiden to brush your teeth
on Shabbos because it is a psik reisha (certain outcome) that your gums
will bleed in the process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Zelunka <mzelunka@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 00:31:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Brushing Teeth on Shabbos
Zvi wrote:
>I can understand why brushing your teeth on Shabbos is
>permissable because smoothing is not a problem, but why isn't there a
>concern of halbana (whitening) ?
>Furthermore, for those with sore gums, causing anything to bleed
>is also prohibited because of shechita (slaughtering) ?
Isn't there also a prohibition of brushing your teeth on Shabbos because of
the potential for bristles falling out?
Thanks in advance,
Mark
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Merling <MerlingP@...>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 11:28:00 PST
Subject: Re: Hebrew
Arnie Kuzmach (vol 26:08) writes that in Biblical Hebrew 'VAY-ANEHA'
concerning DINAH "is closer to exploit and does not imply the infliction
of physical pain." How does he know this? On the spot, Rashi states that
he had sexual intercourse with her shelo kidarka, which usually refers
to anal intercourse, which presumably involves physical pain, and can
therefore be translated as "he tortured her." Also he forgot that
fasting and hunger are referred to throughout the Torah as
EENUI. Fasting is physical pain. In Devarim we are told " vay-ancha" and
He tortured you and he starved you and He fed you Manna." Despite
physical or mental torture which Klal Yisroel , the Jewish people, may
experience, The One Above will in time feed us with Manna.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick Turkel, Ext. 2214, Room 5404B bs < <rturkel@...>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:59:22 -0500
Subject: Hypertension and Salting Meat
Yosef Dweck <JDST156@...> wrote:
> We are taught that: "meliah harei hu keroteah" the salting of meat is
>as if its roasted. Meaning that like when roasting meat all blood is
Is this correct? Doesn't "roteach" mean "boiling," not
"roasting" (which is "tzali")?
>extracted, so to salting it does the same (more about this principal can
>be found in She'elot Utshuvot "Avkat Rochel" of the mehaber Siman Resh
>Tet Vav). Thus in a case like this when no salt at all can be used it is
>much safer halachicly to resort to roasting the meat than the boiling
>process mentioned by Rav Gutnick.
If the text reads as Yosef says, then it would appear that
boiling is exactly what is recommended. Or does it say "... ketzali?"
Rick Turkel (___ _____ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ ___
<rturkel@...>)oh.us| | \ ) |/ \ | | | \__) |
<rturkel@...> / | _| __)/ | ___) | ___|_ | _( \ |
Rich or poor, it's good to have money. Ko rano rani | u jamu pada.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <toramada@...> (Shoshana L. Boublil)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 97 07:51:44 PST
Subject: Re: Marsupials and Kashrut
To quote my husband (Rabbi Tsuriel Boublil) - the 3 animals represent 3
types of animals with differences in their digestive systems.
Does anyone have details on a marsupial's digestive system (number of
stomachs and other info.) This would enable him (and others) to check and
see which type the marsupial belongs to.
Shoshana L. Boublil
<toramada@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Sherer <sherer@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:16:05 +0200
Subject: Mezonot Rolls
Gershon Dubin writes:
> It is bread if it fits the criteria for bread as enumerated in
> Shulchan Aruch, or if it is pas habaah bekisnin (i.e. "cake") and you
> are eating enough to be making a meal out of it. If it fits either of
> these categories, it is bread and you must make hamotzi over it and wash
> before eating it. Washing is not an independent determinant.
This is actually a *very* complicated Halacha. I would preface this by
saying that I am neither Rav nor posek and one should always consult a
posek before determining what to do in this situation.
R. Yisroel Pinchos Bodner in "V'then Bracha" (Page 261) sums this up as
follows:
"Note: Although these products are not actually bread, if one is kovaya
seuda (makes the mainstay of his meal) using pas haboh b'kisnin, it is
treated halachically as bread and requires n'tilas yadayim (washing
hands - C.S.), bircas hamotzi and bircas hamozon. A meal consisting of
eight k'zaysim (olive-sized pieces - C.S.) of cake, would be treated as
a bread meal (according to many poskim). (Footnote refers to Mishna
Brura 168:24). Thus a breakfast of two large danishes for example,
would require washing, bircas hamotzi and bircas hamozon."
If this is the case, then why is it that we rarely see people washing at
a Kiddush? Don't lots of people eat more than two large danishes at a
Kiddush? Last year, I attended a shiur in Hilchos Brachos in Har Nof
where this question was asked. If I recall correctly, the Rav said that
the reason one does not wash is that one does not intend to be kovaya
seuda on the cake, regardless of whether or not he eats the shiur
(amount) cited above.
I should add that in a footnote on the same page R. Bodner brings down
the opinions of R. Moshe Feinstein zt"l and R. Yaakov Kaminetsky zt"l.
He says that R. Feinstein held that in America, where less bread is
generally eaten with a meal, less bread is required to be kovaya seuda,
and therefore if one eats pas haboh b'kisnin with meat at a wedding (for
example) it would take less of it to require washing, motzi and bircas
hamazon. R. Bodner adds in R. Kaminetsky's name that this only applies
when the "cake" is eaten together with the meat and not when they are
eaten separately. I think R. Kaminetsky's comment tends to support what
I heard in the shiur last year.
-- Carl Sherer
Thank you for davening for our son, Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya. Please
keep him in mind for a healthy, long life.
Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:<sherer@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Len613@...> (Len Mansky)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 01:30:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Modern and Ancient Arabic
>I don't know what the situation is with Arabic: whether a literate
>speaker of modern Arabic can read the Koran without special training.
>Does anyone know?
According to the introduction in a highly respected 1980 translation of
the Qur'an (The Message of the Qur'an, Translated and Explained by
Muhammad Asad -- aka Leopold Weiss originally of Lvov, but that is
another story), "Arabic is ... the only Semitic language which has
remained uninterruptedly alive for thousands of years; and it is the
only living language which has remained entirely unchanged for the last
14 centuries." In spite of this, the answer to your question is
apparently "not fluently." Arabic is apparently highly idiomatic, and
the translations of people with academic knowledge of Arabic, even
Muslims, have problems with the nuances of idiom and phraseology.
Modern Qur'an translators rely on earlier exegates just as we do.
Len Mansky
(<Len613@...>)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Moishe Kimelman <kimel@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:39:33 +1000
Subject: Modern Hebrew vs Ancient Hebrew
In #08 Arnold Kuzmack writes:
>BTW, the accessibility of Biblical Hebrew to speakers of Modern Hebrew
>is not an unmixed blessing. We think we know what the words mean.
and he goes on to give some examples of misused words.
The most extreme example that I have heard is the word "za'atut"
(zayin-alef-tet-vav-tet) which the Alkalay dictionary renders, amongst
other things, as small boy, youngster and hoodlum. The source of the
word is gemara Megillah 9a, where the sages intentionally mistranslated
for King Ptolemy the word "na'arei" (youth) as "za'atutei" (nobles),
because otherwise Ptolemy would have scoffed at the sending of youth to
offer sacrifices. Although Tosafos there explains that the root of
za'atut can mean both greatness and lowliness, it does seem a strange
choice of word for its Modern Hebrew meaning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tanya Scott <SCOTTT@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 97 00:28:00 PST
Subject: Sistine Churches
>From: Carl Sherer
>I asked some years ago about going into churches and was told that if a
>chapel is no longer used as a church, it is permitted to go into it. It
>is my understanding that the Sistine Chapel is no longer used as a
>church; it is only "used" for people to look at the artwork.
But some congregations that can't afford their own synagogue rent
churches to hold their services. Is this prohibited? I'm not sure how
they're able to do this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zev Sero <zsero@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:56:50 -0800
Subject: Re: Unkosher Pets
Robert A. Book <rbook@...> said:
> 1) Why is it forbidden to own a pig? Not like I'm about to go out and
> buy one, but I have never heard this before, and I have heard that pigs
> are intelligent (for animals) and make good pets (i.e., one might be
> able to derive benfit from them, as from dogs or cats, without eating
> them or their milk).
The raising of pigs for any reason was banned during the war between
Shlomtzion's sons. The ban commemorates one of the tragedies that
happened during that war, when the daily sacrifice (tamid) had to be
discontinued because the forces beseiged in Jerusalem ran out of sheep,
and the beseiging forces, who had until then sent two sheep a day into
the city for the tamid, one day sent in a pig instead. This incident is
also one of the five tragedies commemorated on 17 Tammuz.
> 2) Related question: Is it permitted to wear pigskin shoes, carry a
> pigskin wallet, and/or touch a pigskin football? One the one hand, one
> is not supposed to come in contact with that carcass of a non-kosher
> animal, but most people swat flies, and many wear pigskin shoes, etc.
It is permitted to do all of these things. I don't know where people
get the idea that one shouldn't touch the carcass of an unkosher
animal. Such contact does impart tum'ah, but so does the carcass
of a kosher animal. In any case, there is no prohibition on becoming
tamei.
Zev Sero Don't blame me, I voted for Harry Browne
<zsero@...>
<zsero@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <mrayman@...> (Mark Rayman)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 12:15:51 EST
Subject: Wallaby, Camel, Hyrax and the Hare
The torah does describe three animals as being "ma'aleh gerah" (cud
chewing) and not cloven hoofed: the gamal (camel), shafan (hyrax or
coney), and the arnevet (hare).
Many commentaries point out the neither the hyrax or the hare, (or
rabbits) actually chew their cud.
Rabbi Hirsch in his commentary says that we must be misidentifying these
animals, and the true meaning of "arnevet" and "shafan" are not known.
Rabbi Amitai ben David, in his book "sichat chulin", at the end of the
third perek, has a lengthy discussion of this issue. He quotes some
sources as saying that since these animals are always "chewing", even
when not eating, it "seems" as if they are chewing their cud.
Rabbi Ben David, as well as Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (Living Torah, Vayikra
11) state that although rabbits do not chew their cud, they do eat their
fecal matter, and are therefore considered to be "ma'aleh gerah".
One must also point out the camels do not chew their cud in the same way
the cows do. Camels only have three stomachs, and cows have four.
We see from all this (especially if we accpet R. Ben David and Rabbi
Kaplan) is that there is not a clear singular definition of ma'aleh
gerah. And it certainly includes more than just ruminants.
So the statement by the Talmud (Chulin, somewhere in the third perek)
which started this whole thread:
The ruler of his world (Hashem) knows that there are no other
ma'aleh gerah that do not "split the hoof" other than the camel
(and shafan and arnevet)"
is very hard to evaluate, verify, or question becuase we do not have a
good definition of "ma'aleh gera".
Moshe Rayman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rhendel@...> (Russell Hendel)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:38:03 -0500
Subject: Why Hebrew Preserved for 4000 Years
Arnold Kuzmack (Vol 26 n8) writes that the reason we can read Hebrew today is
because
>> the normal process of linguistic change was intrerrupted by two
>>millenia during which it was not much used as language of daily life
First of all: The High Holy day literature is filled with Poems not
readily understood by people fluent in Hebrew. Similary the responsa
and post Talmudic literature are not readily understood by people fluent
in Hebrew. So Arnold's claim that Hebrew was not much used is not
completely accurate. It WAS used and was used differently!
The real point, is that although the language changed, nevertheless, we
weekly read the Torah and Haftorah's and preserved the original Hebrew.
In other words, it was the process of education that preserved the
original Hebrew ALONGSIDE a growing and changing language.
In fact Arnold's own example of the meaning of AYNH in Gen 34:2 proves
this point. I know this word mean rape and not e.g. torture because as a
student of the Bible I can see it used that way frequently (e.g. Deut
23:24,29).
I in fact agree with Arnold on the
>>possibility that Hebrew of a few centuries from now will be quite
different from today"s>>.
But my focus would be NOT on the continually changing language but
rather on the erosion of education. As long as we lain and study
Chumash, whatever else happens, we will preserve the old Hebrew
alongside the new.
Russell Hendel, Ph.d, ASA; RHendel @ mcs . Drexel . Edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 26 Issue 9
